🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”